(inspired from https://reason.com/2025/01/31/the-government-says-money-isnt-property-so-it-can-take-yours/)
In the particular case involving Chuck Saine—a small business owner at the center of a dispute over asset forfeiture—the government advanced an argument encapsulated in a technical footnote: that “money is not necessarily ‘property’ for constitutional purposes.” The rationale behind this assertion is rooted in the idea that money is a creation of the state. Since the government has the exclusive authority to issue currency, and because it also has the power to tax and regulate its use, the government contends that money does not enjoy the same constitutional protection as, say, a piece of real estate or physical personal property.
The underlying logic is twofold:
- Government Creation and Control: Money is produced by government entities (e.g., the Federal Reserve in the United States), and its supply is subject to state control. Because the state can create or destroy money at will, it argues that individuals do not have the same property interest in money as they do in assets that exist independently of governmental fiat.
- Taxation and General Welfare: The government also points to its power to tax money and to spend it for the “general welfare” of the public. The argument follows that if money were treated as private property in the same manner as physical assets, then actions like taxation or even asset forfeiture could be seen as violations of the constitutional protection of property. By categorizing money differently, the government believes it can justify such measures within a constitutional framework.
This argument is largely technical and hinges on a nuanced reading of constitutional property rights. Proponents of this view argue that because money serves a unique function in our economic system and is a tool of state policy, it should be subject to a different standard of review when it comes to seizure or impoundment by the government.
Legal Precedents and Critiques
However, this interpretation has not gone unchallenged. Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates have criticized the government’s position on several grounds:
- Due Process and the Fifth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment protects individuals against deprivation of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law. Money, being a primary form of one’s property, should therefore be shielded from arbitrary seizure without a full judicial process. When the government claims that money is not “property” for constitutional purposes, it risks eroding these fundamental protections. Critics argue that if money were stripped of its property status, individuals could lose their savings or business revenues without the standard safeguards of a trial before an impartial judge and jury.
- Logical Inconsistencies: Critics also point out that many other government-created items—such as licenses, permits, or even the regulatory frameworks used in public policy—do not lose their legal status as property or entitlements simply because they were created by the state. For example, a driver’s license is issued by the government, yet it does not subject the holder to the notion that it isn’t their property. Extending this logic to money produces a problematic and inconsistent legal principle.
- Economic and Social Implications: If the state could argue that money is not constitutionally protected as property, it would set a dangerous precedent. This could potentially allow the government to seize funds under various pretexts—be it taxation, administrative action, or asset forfeiture—without providing the full due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Such a shift would likely undermine public confidence in the financial system and could lead to broader economic instability.
Broader Philosophical Implications
The debate touches on larger philosophical questions about the nature of property and individual rights in modern society. Traditionally, property rights have been seen as a cornerstone of individual freedom and economic stability. When individuals work, save, and invest, they accumulate wealth that is supposed to be secure from arbitrary government interference. By asserting that money is not necessarily property, the government risks blurring the lines between individual ownership and state control.
Consider the following provocative implications:
- Government Employees and Public Servants: If money is not treated as property because it is created by the government, does this imply that those who are paid in that money—such as government employees—are somehow “enslaved” to the state? Obviously, society rejects that notion, as government employees enjoy a range of legal protections and rights that confirm they are free, independent individuals rather than state property.
- Precedent for Future Encroachments: Accepting the government’s assertion could lead to a slippery slope where other forms of property are reinterpreted in ways that favor state control over individual rights. This might include arguments that certain licenses, permits, or even digital assets should not be fully protected by constitutional property rights simply because the state plays a role in their creation or regulation.
- The Essence of Currency and Wealth: Money is not just a token; it’s a representation of the value individuals have earned and the wealth they have accumulated. Reclassifying money as something less than property could call into question the fundamental nature of wealth and financial security in a free society.
Implications
When the state claims that money is not property, it opens the door to a host of troubling implications:
- Arbitrary Seizures and Impoundment: If money is not constitutionally recognized as property, the government could, in theory, seize funds without being bound to the full spectrum of judicial safeguards that normally protect private property. This would extend to asset forfeiture programs, where individuals—often small business owners like Chuck Saine—could have tens of thousands of dollars or more seized from them without the benefit of a trial before an impartial judge and jury. The result is a system where the state’s discretion over cash becomes nearly limitless, with little accountability.
- Erosion of Due Process: The due process guarantee is a fundamental protection against arbitrary state power. By arguing that money is not property, the government effectively undermines this protection, shifting the burden onto the individual to prove that their money is “clean” or not subject to seizure. This inversion of the presumption of innocence is reminiscent of a system in which all government employees are treated not as free citizens but as state assets—akin to a form of modern-day serfdom or slavery.
- Implications for Government Employees and Public Servants: One provocative question that arises from this argument is whether, if money is not property, then all government employees—whose salaries are paid in the very currency the government creates—are in effect enslaved by the state. Of course, that conclusion is absurd. We recognize that government employees have rights, benefits, and contractual protections that set them apart from chattel or slaves. The fact that their wages are paid in government-issued money does not mean that they are property of the state. This inconsistency starkly highlights the absurdity of the government’s logic: if the creation of money were to strip it of property status, then why would the same principle not apply to all the myriad things the government creates? After all, the government creates regulations, licenses, permits, and even educational curricula—none of which strip away the individual rights of citizens who depend on them.
- Undermining Economic Confidence: Money serves as the backbone of the economy; it is the medium of exchange, the unit of account, and the store of value. If the public starts to believe that the government can arbitrarily redefine what counts as property when it comes to money, confidence in the entire financial system could erode. People might begin to see their savings, investments, and earnings as vulnerable to capricious government actions, potentially leading to a destabilization of economic activity.
- A Precedent for Further Encroachments: Accepting the premise that money is not property for constitutional purposes could have cascading effects. It might embolden the government to claim that other forms of personal property or even personal rights are less protected than we traditionally believe. This could lead to a broader expansion of state power, where arbitrary seizures, fines, and administrative penalties become routine and unchallengeable.
A Thought-Provoking Examination of Government-Created Entities
It’s important to consider other examples of government creation. Take, for instance, the establishment of Social Security and Medicare programs. These are government-created entitlements that provide benefits to citizens, yet the funds that finance them are still considered private property of taxpayers until they are appropriated by Congress. The key difference is that these programs come with explicit legal protections and established due process. In contrast, if money itself is deemed not to be private property, the government could justify a wide range of unilateral actions against it without the safeguards of judicial oversight.
Another striking example is the issuance of government bonds. When the government borrows money by issuing bonds, investors buy these bonds with the understanding that they are lending money, a transaction that is protected by property rights and contractual law. To argue that money is not property would throw the entire bond market into chaos, as the fundamental nature of these financial instruments relies on the certainty that the money used to purchase them is indeed the private property of the investors.
If we take the government’s line to its logical extreme, we might even begin to question whether all aspects of our financial system could be subject to similar reclassification. Would this mean that digital currencies, cryptocurrencies, or even non-fiat assets are any less the property of their owners simply because they are created by decentralized algorithms or financial institutions? Certainly not. Just as we do not consider government-issued licenses or permits to strip away individual rights, we must not allow a narrow interpretation of “property” to undermine the constitutional protections afforded to money.
Moreover, this argument raises a disturbing hypothetical: if money is not property, then what prevents the government from imposing vast, unaccountable fines or seizing assets without a proper judicial process? It could create a system where the executive branch has unchecked power over the personal finances of every citizen—a modern manifestation of state overreach that is both legally and morally indefensible.
In summary, the government’s claim that money is not property for constitutional purposes is a dangerous and overly broad interpretation that threatens to erode the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution. It is an in-“Saine” idea in name and nature—one that, if allowed to stand, could lead to arbitrary seizures, undermine due process, and destabilize our economic system. By singling out money for this special treatment, the government sets a precedent that could eventually justify similar overreaches into other areas of private life, leaving citizens with fewer protections and less control over their own property.
The absurdity of this argument is made all the more apparent when one considers that the government creates many things—licenses, permits, regulations, and even social programs—but none of these creations strip individuals of their property rights. If we allowed money to be treated differently, would we then conclude that government employees are nothing more than state property? Clearly not. Recognizing the intrinsic value of money as private property is essential for safeguarding individual rights, ensuring economic stability, and maintaining the rule of law. In a society that values freedom and justice, such a “Saine” proposal is not only legally unsound—it is profoundly, and downright, insane.
Leave a Reply